Daily Bread Mailbag: Lomachenko, Naazim, Thurman-Ortiz, More

The Daily Bread Mailbag returns with Stephen "Breadman" Edwards tackling topics such as the greatness of late trainer Naazim Richardson, evaluating Vasiliy Lomachenko, great chins in the sport of boxing, Vergil Ortiz targeting former world champion Keith Thurman, and more.

A greeting. I discovered your mailing bag 3-4 months ago. The subject is P4P # 1 story. Reviewing a bit of history, I see that there is no continuity with respect to P4P # 1 in past times (..60s, 70s ..). So here is my question: Mr. Beardman Can you go back in time, apply your criteria and tell us a story of P4P # 1 from the year you consider possible (Quenberry rules, Joe Louis era, etc.) until today? Can you give the details of the wins, losses, retirements, etc. that caused the changes in # 1? D. Durán, Venezuela 

Bread’s Response: If I go back to WWII which is really the Mason Dixon Line as far as pugilistic history. The #1 P4P fighter is Sugar Ray Robinson.

If you go by resume and fought who with analytics. I have to assume that Robinson fought and defeated more top 10 contenders than anyone. If you go by peak value. He went 128-1-2 from 1940-52. If you go by advancement in skill and craft. In the 1940s the skill and craft level has is the same as it is today, their fights are just not in color HD. It’s not like the 1900s when boxing was still new in development. If you go by the eye ball test, Robinson is among the handful of most talented fighters ever. If you go by size comparison. He was 5’11 with a 72inch reach and had dynamite in both hands. The biggest welterweight in this era is Errol Spence who is 5’9 with a 72 inch reach. His physical toughness is absurd. He was stopped once in 25 years and over 200 fights and that was because of heat exhaustion. Even the most reliable chins of his era had a few stoppage losses.

There are a few fighters who came before him that can challenge him for the top spot like Harry Greb, Joe Gans, Sam Langford, Benny Leonard, Henry Armstrong, Joe Louis and Tony Canzoneri. But I could poke more holes in their resumes, eye ball test and analytics than I can Robinson.

Then there are fighters who came during his reign like Willie Pep, Ezzard Charles, Ike Williams, Archie Moore and Sandy Saddler and I can do exactly the same. Judging the fighters from the same exact era is easiest and no one thought any of those great fighters were better than Robinson while they were all active.

Then there are fighters who came after Robinson like Muhammad Ali, Carlos Monzon, Roberto Duran,  Ray Leonard, Floyd Mayweather, Manny Pacquiao, Pernell Whitaker , Roy Jones and Julio Cesar Chavez. And the same can be said.

Overall throughout history there are about 25 fighters who during their primes there were cases made that they had a shot at being the best the P4P #1 fighter. Some cases lasted longer. Some cases were stronger. But I think Robinson’s case has lasted the longest and has the strongest overall value everything is taken into real consideration. At that level it’s picking straws but when you look at small minutia of everything being considered I think Sugar Ray Robinson is the #1 P4P in history. He checks more boxes than everyone else and he tips my scale because he never took a BAD loss close to his prime or even after when he was an old man. He never quit in a fight and he was never badly kod. His toughness to go along with his remarkable longevity and talent do it for me.

If I randomly pick two names out of the hat. Let’s say Roberto Duran and Roy Jones. Duran has the longevity. He has the peak value. He has the close to perfect record of 71-1 during his prime years. He has the incredible performances vs Leonard and Hagler. But if we nitpick which is what you have to do at this level to determine the best. Duran has bad losses to Hearns and Leonard. He has the Kirkland Laing loss. He quit in a fight. I hate bringing that up because I don’t view him as a Quitter. But if there is ever an argument between Duran and Robinson and you break everything down. Robinson has to have a small edge.

Next let’s pick Roy Jones. Roy Jones’s prime was as good as it gets. But a fighter can be judged as he slips some. Jones fought more killers in his prime than he’s given credit for but he does have some valuable misses that haunt him. Fighting None of the UK Super Middleweights of his era hurts him slightly. I think Steve Collins was available at one point. No Michael Nunn fight with WBC scandal slightly hurts him. Then dropping down in weight to fight Tarver when he had just looked awesome vs Ruiz hurts him in comparison to Robinson because Robinson doesn’t have those bad ko losses even as an old man. And Robinson had way more fights than Jones with smaller gloves. I love Roy Jones as much as any fighter I’ve watched. I defend his legacy consistently. I believe he’s a top 20 fighter ever. But I’m just using this as an random example of comparing other fighters to Ray Robinson. Robinson always gets the edge when everything is factored in.

I’ve compared every fighter I could to Robinson. Randomly and objectively. And not one time have I walked away saying that guy was better than Sugar Ray Robinson. Not once. The closest I came was the 79-82 version of Sugar Ray Leonard and the 93-03 version of Roy Jones. But Leonard just doesn’t have enough fights and his inactivity hurts him. If Leonard doesn’t get inactive and he takes on a few of the emerging welters and super welters of the 80s like Breland, Starling, Curry, Ayala, McCallum and Moore. Look out. But he didn’t and we can only count what he did.

Jones has enough fights but his bad losses kill his chances. If Jones stayed at heavyweight after Ruiz and beats say Holyfield, Tyson and maybe a Chris Byrd or James Toney. All winnable fights. Jones is there with Robinson. And Jones didn’t have to run the table just win more than he loses and don’t take BAD losses. But things didn't work out like that for him.

Great Question and Thank you.

Breadman,

What exactly does it mean to have a great chin? Does it mean never hitting the canvas? Does it mean never getting stopped?

George Chuvalo, for instance, fought a litany of heavyweight greats back in his day, yet, astonishingly, never was floored. However, he did have some TKO losses.

Rocky Marciano, of course, was never stopped, yet he was floored multiple times.

How do we judge a great chin?

Thank you so much! Keep up the good work!

P.S. Where do debilitating body shots fit into all of this? For instance, GGG was clearly hurt in his most recent fight against SD, but he didn't actually go down.

Brandon from ATL

Bread’s Response: A great chin is a fighter who can consistently take big punches at the elite level and not be stopped often or at all. A chin that holds up under the gun. No it doesn’t mean NEVER being stopped. Anyone can be stopped. I know some fighters who haven’t been stopped or have been stopped just a couple of times but they are chinny. I can name you some great chins from yester year and currently that have been stopped.

George Chuvalo has a MONSTER chin. He’s been stopped but he’s a limited fighter. He takes punches full on. He takes more punches than more talented fighters. So let’s keep him in context. Some fighters have great defense and they don’t get hit clean. Chuvalo is NOT one of those fighters. Chuvalo may have the best chin in history. Watch the punches he takes vs George Foreman.

I won’t go back to far in history because some people just can’t go back that far. So I will go back to the best chins of the decades from the 80s up until now.

Marvin Hagler has most likely the best chin of the 80s. Salvador Sanchez’s chin and Roberto Duran’s were also on the level. Throw that Tommy Hearns right hand out. No one in history can take that shot he hit Duran with.

In the 90s Holyfield, McCallum, Eubank, Mercer, Tua, McCoullough, McCall, McClellan and Toney led the way. But Julio Cesar Chavez probably had the top hard head out of everyone though.

In the 2000s Glen Johnson, Carl Froch, Mikell Kessler, Oscar de La Hoya and Shane Mosley had the chins.

Over the last 10 years, I like Floyd Mayweather’s chin, Manny Pacquiao’s even though he was clipped, GGG, Donaire and Canelo. GGG may have a chin as good as Hagler’s.

Currently Danny Garcia has an excellent set of whiskers. I think his chin allows him to stay in the box and land his big shots. Shawn Porter has also showed an excellent chin. Both Charlo twins have underrated chins. They both get hit with big shots and neither gets wobbled, knocked down or get gun shy. They have tremendous chins. Chocolatito, Juan Estrada and SSR all have excellent elite level chins. Jarrett Hurd has also shown a real ability to eat big punches and keep going. Last but not least Erislandy Lara. Lara is not known as a tough guy but he is. Over the years he’s shown a real ability to take punches and not fold.

For the record sometimes elite fighters get overlooked because they are so talented in other areas. Bernard Hopkins has an excellent chin but he’s so good defensively people don’t realize it. Ray Leonard has a set of whiskers but because of his talent people forget about his toughness. Same with Pernell Whitaker.

The one thing about a chin is it can be ruined. You have to be careful praising or bragging about a chin. I’ve seen it happen several times. I’ve also seen fighters who go down and get hurt but have remarkable recuperative powers like Aaron Pryor, Arturo Gatti, Chico Corrales, Juan Manuel Marquez and Felix Trinidad. They are not hard to hurt or drop but they are very tough to stop. I don’t consider them to have iron chins. But they have dependable ones.

Sup Bread,

How many out of Lopez, Haney, Garcia and Davis does Lomachenko need to beat in order to be considered ATG? The reason I ask this is because there are many traditionalists in boxing who will never accept anyone with so few fights as ATG. I bet, as per many Lomachenko will not be an ATG even if he beats all of them. I don’t agree but I can definitely see their point. I have personally held this thing against my all time favorite SRL as well. While I consider SRL an ATG and rank him extremely high when it comes to mythical matchups, I have to concede that he fought to little to be compared to an SRR or Hank Armstrong. What do you think?

Regards,
Saurabh

Bread’s Response: Sugar Ray Leonard is one of the best 15 fighters to ever walk this earth. He doesn’t have to be OVER Robinson or Armstrong. He has a place just below them on the ATG. His 4 scalps of Benitez, Duran, Hearns and Hagler are as good as any 4 in history by 1 fighter. You have to hold Leonard in context the same way you do Loma.

Loma  may end his career with 20 title fights. That would be more than Marvin Hagler, Carlos Monzon, Michael Spinks, Billy Conn, Jake Lamotta etc etc. I can go on all day about that.

In boxing people repeat the same nonsense over and over. Loma doesn’t have enough fights. Then I show them how many championship fights their favorites had and they get quiet.

In my opinion Loma is already a HOF. He meets the qualifications. How many Gold Medalist in history have won 3 division titles, unified and been regarded as the #1 P4P guy and not been a HOF? So now it’s whether or not he can be ATG.

I think if he beats two of the young gunners he’s a ATG. I think if he goes back down to 130lbs and wins some big fights he’s an ATG. I think if he sneaks a real belt at 140lb he’s an ATG. He just has to have a few more years of consistent excellence without dropping off too far. He can take a loss. He just can’t get creamed by guys he should beat.

But before we go too far, let’s see how he looks vs Teofimo Lopez. This will be a really hard for him. Really hard. If he looks sensational in a great fight and wins, then we can reevaluate things. At this stage you have judge things on a fight by fight basis. Loma is 32, he’s small and he’s getting injured. Let’s just see how things go.

Dearest Breadman,

Hope that this email finds both you and your family well. Unfortunate times we are in.

I have a few questions for you. The first being; do you feel like Paulie M. was being a racist with his statement during the interview? Or was he being brutally honest since he felt the security of not being " on the air"? I remember in the past you stated that racism exists within, whether wanted or not. Or do you think Showtime had enough of his out spoken self? From what i understand he did have a chance to apologize for his actions.

#2 Is a child more likely to be a success in boxing if he is started very early? My son is already working the mitts at 6 and seems to absorb the info very quickly. What age would he benefit from a educated trainer?

I apologize for the length.
Regards,
Jon (NC Uppercut)

Bread’s Response: You’re going to have to be more specific as far as what exactly did Paulie say. And, I don’t know what Showtime’s policies are. I’m not privy to that info, so I can’t get into why Paulie was fired. I did read he was fired but it didn’t say exactly why.

People don’t believe me but I don’t indulge in internet gossip. I interact a little on social media but I don’t listen to many interviews and things like that. I think they’re poison to the brain.

From my personal experiences I have spoken with Paulie several times on and off the record and he was a great conversation. I really liked talking boxing with him and he was cool. I never got a racist vibe.

I don’t even want to research or guess what you could be talking about. You’re going to have to specific and give me context in order for me to answer a serious question like this.

It depends on the child. 6 is very early unless they’re advanced mentally. It’s not just athleticism. It’s being able to follow instructions. I coach my son’s football team of 6,7 and 8 year olds. The 6 year olds are very underdeveloped mentally. They don’t pay attention. The 8 years olds are mostly the best players. 2 years of development is a lot.

I think child can start anywhere between 6-12 and be whatever his potential was going to be. Now if you go too far into the late teens then their development may get stunted. But anywhere between those ages and they should be good. But don’t rush it. Everybody is not up for getting punched in the face despite being able to fight.

Saw where Benevidez missed weight by three pounds just about. Don’t know if he gets a chance to shed that weight or not... but it got me wondering about weight cutting.

There have been fights where a guy loses and uses drainage from weight cutting as his reason. Do you buy that? Or are you a No-Excuses Guy when it comes to that sorta thing?

Bread’s Response: Of course I buy it. I’ve seen lots of guys lose fights because they cut too much weight or had bad weight cuts. It literally happens in over 50% of the fights. But it’s not an EXCUSE, it’s just the reason.

Sometimes a fighter genuinely outgrows the division. But if you have 8 or more weeks to get ready for a fight. There are enough resources as far as information and nutrition to get down in weight safely. They have to invest in themselves. It may cost money but it can be done.

The biggest reason why fighters miss weight or have weight issues is lack of DISCIPLINE. They don’t weigh themselves enough while not in camp. In between fights if fighters stayed closer to their division weights it wouldn’t shock their body so much to make weight and make them weak.

For example a welterweight should be between 165-170 in this era in between fights. And that’s being generous. He should start camp between 160-65. Once he sees himself get in that too heavy range, simply do some cardio and don’t over eat for a few days. Just imply weight management. But what happens is some will get way over 170. They will get closer to 175-80. Then they have to cut weight, train and perform. Then they have a flat performance. Cutting too much causes them to lose minerals. Lower their testosterone. Lower their white blood cell counts. Cut into muscle. Effect stamina. And lower their punch resistance. Well sure weight was the reason but it’s not an EXCUSE. If you know all of these things don’t get overweight.

Ssup Bread,

What do you make out of Vergil Ortiz calling out Thurman and Garcia? I think PBC will only offer him Ugas at this point. Call me crazy but I think outside of Crawford and Spence, I feel he will beat every other top 10 guy. Pacquiao and Porter would be a 50/50 fight. A good thing about both him and Jaron Ennis is that they are big welterweights like Leonard, Trinidad and Curry. While the sharks at lightweight are hovering much closer to Lomachenko, I believe the welterweight sharks (Ennis and Ortiz) are 2 to 3 years away from being a serious threat to either Crawford or Spence. How do you think Ennis and Ortiz would fare against the likes of Pacquiao, Porter, Thurman, Garcia and Ugas?

My deepest condolences to you and all others who were close to the late great Naazim Richardson. Can you shine some light on his contribution to the Philly boxing scene?

Regards,
Saurabh

Bread’s Response: Naazim Richardson was the most charismatic and recognizable trainer that I have been around in Philadelphia. He was a leader. He was a teacher. He fighters respected and loved him. And most of all he was an excellent trainer. I’m going to miss him.

Quick Story: When Naazim was in the gym. I would tell my fighters don’t make eye contact with him until the workout was done. I wouldn’t either. Because he loved to talk and he would have you engaged for like 15 minutes and you can’t tell him no when he wanted to talk because he gets that OG respect. What a great guy!

As for Vergil Ortiz I always like for young guns to be ambitious but I don’t excited, here is why. Most young fighters think they are invincible. But a transformation happens when they either lose or get into their late 20s. They treat boxing more like a business when the young guns come after them, or the fans want them to take fights that they have a 50/50 chance to LOSE.

So I respect Ortiz’s ambition but I keep everything in context. In the actual fights I don’t think Ortiz or Ennis have to wait 2 to 3 years. I think they are 1 or 2 developmental fights  away from challenging top 10 fighters or champions. They need the opportunites. It’s just that simple. They need “in fight” development. Now most likely they won’t get it because of how dangerous they are and their trainers will have to overcome that with training.

I think Ennis and Ortiz are live vs everybody in the division right now. I’m not saying they would beat everyone. But I think they are live. Fighters reach their physical peaks earlier than they reach their skill and mental peaks. It’s hard for a 30 yr old to deal with a 22 or 23 yr old kid who has no wear and tear. Those kids are a load for anyone and people in boxing know it. Both will most likely have to be mandatories to get title shots. But their teams are responsible for getting them the right fights up until that point. I would like to see both take on a Ugas or Jamal James level fighters before they challenge for a title. Let’s see if it happens. They may have to go straight to a title shot because older veterans may want huge money to fight one of them and I don’t know if huge money is available.

I thought my top 10 list with a 1950 cut off was a neat experiment, and I appreciate you doing it. In your response, you mentioned that historians have reevaluated Harry Greb’s standing in recent years, and it’s resulted in his stock rising in the standings.

Got me wondering who are some other fighters whose standings have improved with reevaluation?
Greg K.

Bread’s Response: Ezzard Charles comes to mind first. He went from a fighter who wasn’t considered as good as Archie Moore although he beat him 3x. To a fighter who is now considered the best light heavyweight ever despite never receiving a title shot at the weight. With research, common sense and the eye ball test, Charles’s status has improved through the years.

Lennox Lewis’s was a fighter during his career who wasn’t all the accepted for whatever reasons. His 2 ko losses to big underdogs didn’t help. But if you look at his career really good. Especially his 1998-2000 peak years. His longevity. His accomplishments and resilience. You know he’s a top 10 heavyweight ever and head to head he’s a bump for anyone including Ali and Louis.

Aaron Pryor is a fighter who these social media groups and casuals have elevated. I love Pryor but the big dogs were not scared of Pryor in the 1980s. He was offered 2 fights with Ray Leonard not one. They increased the offer from 500k to 750k. Before anyone says that’s not enough, that’s 2.2 million today. Teofimo Lopez was just offered a little over 1 million for a unification. Benitez and Duran only made 1 million to fight Leonard and they were both more accomplished and established than Pryor. Pryor’s manager turned down the fight. He had Leonard’s child hood trainer Dave Jacobs who told him on national tv after he beat Lenox Blackmore to stay with the smaller fighters and leave Ray Leonard alone. It’s on youtube. It embarrassed Pryor a little bit but it happened.

Pryor was a monster. No doubt about it. But the timing and weights were off. Benitez, Leonard, Hearns and Duran were all at welterweight when Pryor was at lightweight and moving towards junior welterweight. They all fought each other at 147 or above. While Pryor was at 140lbs defending his title until he final got his super fight vs Arguello in 1982 and 83. Those guys were junior middleweights or retired by then.

They made a narrative off of Pryor beating Hearns as an amateur and calling Leonard out but he never accepted the fight which would have been a career high payday for him at the time.

I love Pryor. He’s one of the toughest head to head fights vs anyone from 135-140. He was a real monster. But this ducking him stuff from the 4 aforementioned fighters elevate his status unfairly off of their names. He never moved up. He never put himself in position to get the fights. And when he got offered the Super Bowl he said NO. It’s just the truth.

Yo Bread, what's happening, brother.

Hope all is well with you & yours.

I wish I was writing under better circumstances, but reading your last Mailbag you talked about your relationship with the recently departed, late great Naasim Richardson, and it was good hearing about you guys relationship.

Since game recognizes game, I wanted to know as a fellow trainer, what do you see as Brother Naasim's best wins as a trainer? You would have a better perspective on this than the rest of us.

What fights did you watch as a fellow trainer and gain wisdom or game from?

And is there any advice that he gave you that you could share with us about boxing? Life?

Also MM:

Manny Pacquiao vs. Tito Trinidad (147)
Floyd Mayweather vs. Tito Trinidad (147)
Thomas Hearns vs. Tito Trinidad (147)

Bread’s Response: I think Bouie Fisher was the head trainer when Bernard Hopkins beat Trinidad. That’s a great win but I want to count the wins as a head trainer. I know Naazim made a great catch with the hand wraps but I sort of count that as Mr. Fisher’s win. So off the top of my head Tarver, Pavlik and Pascal for his time with Hopkins. Margarito for his work with Shane Mosley. And he has underrated win with Steve Cunningham vs Amir Mansour. Cunningham was in big trouble that night and they fought their way back in the fight and got a great win here in Philly.

I talked to Naazim in the gym and on the phone. He never gave me specific advice but I learned from hearing him talk. He stayed positive and was never a HATER. We have plenty of HATERS in boxing among trainers, especially here in Philly. Naazim wasn’t like that. He rarely said negative things. He did share some things with me off the record about fighters but I can’t say them publicly.

One of the things he told me once was that the zoo keeper at the zoo is a little guy who handles the big animals. He told me you don’t have to be the strongest guy, but you have to be the smartest guy. I always think about that when I see a fighter panic when their opponent is stronger. Naazim won some nice fights with fighters who were smaller or perceived to be weaker.

The thing I learned the most from him as how to take his guy through a fight. How to talk him through. I did it naturally but listening to him enhanced it for me. Not just in the corner in between rounds but as the work is going on. When a trainer and his fighter is vibing that’s hard to deal with.

Naazim was the man and I will always love him for showing me love when no one else in Philly did. We train in a rough place. It’s dog eat dog even among members of your own team. Naazim embraced me….

Tito, Flip a Coin, Hearns.

Send Questions to dabreadman25@hotmail.com